DOCSLIB.ORG

Australian Museum Has a Long-Standing Involvement in Wildlife Licencing Both As a Licensee and As a Recipient of Specimens from Licence-Holders

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Australian Museum Has a Long-Standing Involvement in Wildlife Licencing Both As a Licensee and As a Recipient of Specimens from Licence-Holders 24 July, 2018 Wildlife Licensing Reforms Office of Environment and Heritage Dear Sir or Madam, Re: Wildlife licensing changes: Public consultation Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed wildlife licencing changes. As the oldest museum in Australia, the Australian Museum has a long-standing involvement in wildlife licencing both as a licensee and as a recipient of specimens from licence-holders. The Australian Museum is an active stakeholder in biodiversity conservation and through our Australian Centre for Wildlife Genomics’ accreditation as a Wildlife Forensics laboratory, is an authority on the wildlife trade. By world standards, Australia has a relatively high level of regulation of native fauna and the Museum is a keen supporter of this approach. Trade, husbandry and control of native wildlife presents risks in terms of poaching, disease, genetic disruption and establishment of wild populations outside of natural ranges. Although it is costly to implement, we believe that rigorous licensing is an essential element of our conservation strategy and have previously worked with Office of Environment and Heritage on research of species kept under license where illegal trade occurred in particular during periods of ad-hoc record keeping (see Hogg et al, 2018). We acknowledge that increasing interest in Australian wildlife has increased the number of people seeking to keep wildlife and it appears that this increase is one of the drivers for this discussion paper. However, we do not agree that expanding the industry should be considered inevitable, nor do we consider it desirable to simplify regulation through codes of practice. Ultimately, we think it is important for government to recognise that licensing is an important function of government and that adequate resourcing must be provided to reflect changes in demand. While we support a risk-management approach in the amount of attention the Department gives to processing licenses with different risk levels, we consider that licensing is a more effective way of curbing growth in the wildlife trade than self-regulation through a code-of- practice approach, which are rarely successful in any industry. We have a series of specific comments below and also comments in relation to specific species (attachment 1). Section 2.3 Should licensing be retained for all activities currently requiring a threatened species licence? We strongly support licensing for all activities involving management of listed threatened species. Grey-headed Flying-foxes (GHFFs) are a listed Vulnerable species and requests for local management must be carefully evaluated. We consider that licensing should be retained for management of flying-foxes in public places unless provisions for “camp managers” in the proposed code of practice are strengthened in two areas. Firstly “camp managers” should not be permitted to commence management until they have had a response from the Environment Agency Head, following notification. It is not sufficient merely to inform the Minister and wait 3 days before proceeding. A response should be mandatory prior to commencement of any activity. Secondly, a panel of “flying-fox experts” should be accredited by the Environment Agency and only the panel of accredited experts should be permitted to advise camp managers. We acknowledge that the current process of camp management is narrow-sighted with focus on any one particular camp site at a time. Dispersal actions often lead to shifting the problem to other sites (and councils), rather than looking for a more holistic approach. Therefore, the identified steps in the process of “studying a camp” to “assessing impacts of actions” have to be done in consultation with these accredited “flying-fox experts”. As they stand, the criteria for defining an expert leave too much room for insufficiently-skilled operators. The effect of these two weaknesses in the proposed arrangements make it possible for public land managers to have significant negative impacts on this threatened species. Unless these are rectified, we consider that licensing should remain, and recommend that further strict monitoring of each step in the management process must be in place to ensure compliance with animal ethics regulations. Further regular public reporting on dispersal sites should be enforced to ensure that there is a measure of ‘success’ of such actions for future planning. In addition, shooting of flying-foxes in orchards requires continued licensing, but also ensuring improved regulation and monitoring. While the overall number of licenses issued appears to have decreased (e.g. 15 during 2016/17 season vs, 34 during 2006/7 season), the number of animals allowed to be harmed was actually 30% greater (3728 vs 1155). There has been an inherent issue with non-compliance in the past: high proportion of orchardists have been reported as shooting without a license or outside license provisions, and the methods are often in contravention of animal ethics, leaving injured animals to suffer for hours before death. The current practice of reporting the numbers of harmed GHFFs is inadequate and we acknowledge that the available resources for adequate monitoring of compliance with license are inadequate and need to be revised. Section 4.2.2 • Do you support the retention of licensing for harming protected birds? We consider that licensing provides a higher level of protection for protected species than a code of practice, and there is considerable potential for this change to increase the level of destruction of native species. We therefore support the retention of licensing. • Can you suggest any improvements to the licence conditions for harming birds? As it stands, there is considerable ambiguity in the activities that can be undertaken under a licence to harm protected birds. The nominated purposes all refer to damage mitigation associated with human activities, but the list of species harmed includes species that appear to have been killed for other reasons. For example, Table 7 indicates that 3572 Noisy Miners were harmed in 2017, but this species does not threaten human safety or property. Presumably, these licences have been issued for culling for conservation purposes associated with the Noisy Miner KTP, but this is not provided for in the current wording of the licence. There are many other situations (including macropod grazing pressure) where overabundant native species have adverse ecological impacts, rather than impacts on human safety and property, and there should be a license class that allows management of these impacts. We therefore recommend broadening the description of this class of licence to explicitly include ecological management activities, especially since it appears that some licences have already been issued for this purpose. It is our understanding that as presently described, the only explicit provision for ecological culls is through a scientific licence, which requires evaluation by an animal ethics committee. Such a process is both unnecessary and prohibitive for most land managers. We consider it a priority for licence conditions to be changed to ensure that these management options are available under the Act. • Should codes of practice be developed for harming birds in specified circumstances as an alternative to licensing? We do not support the replacement of licensing with codes of practice, because we think it will result in an increase in animal deaths, usually with little or no benefit. The suggested example of “removal of white ibis nests and eggs from public parks by councils” provides a good test case. If provided with a code of practice, Councils will be encouraged to routinely employ this tool without due consideration of non-destructive alternatives, or alternatives that require licensing. It is usually just a few ibis (the table-jumpers/sandwich-snatchers) that cause problems for people, and the most cost effective, humane and ecologically-sound method of dealing with that problem is to catch and kill the offending animal. Park managers do not tend to employ this option because they are concerned about public backlash or the difficulty of obtaining a licence. Instead, to appease park-users, they remove nests and eggs either from misunderstanding of its efficacy or simply to be seen to be doing something which people incorrectly do not perceive to be as ecologically damaging as culling adults. Ibis sometimes present a problem by nesting close to human habitation, and nest and egg destructive may occasionally be effective in causing ibis to vacate these sites. However, ibis usually re-nest in the same location following destruction of their nests and eggs and sustained removal every three weeks is usually necessary to discourage re-nesting. It is our experience that land-managers normally give up before the ibis. Habitat modification in the form of trimming, or sometimes removing, nesting substrates is generally a more effective technique for discouraging nesting. The requirement to be licensed acts as an incentive for park managers to consider the specific problem they seek to address and the options for resolving it. We consider that providing the option of an unlicensed code-of-practice will encourage an ineffective one-size-fits-all approach that will lead to unnecessary ecological harm. While we have addressed only the white ibis example, the same logic applies to other wildlife issues. Section 5.1 • Do you support the proposed staged approach to implementing a risk-based approach to regulating
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Guidelines for Keeping Venomous Snakes in the NT
    GUIDELINES FOR KEEPING VENOMOUS SNAKES IN THE NT Venomous snakes are potentially dangerous to humans, and for this reason extreme caution must be exercised when keeping or handling them in captivity. Prospective venomous snake owners should be well informed about the needs and requirements for keeping these animals in captivity. Permits The keeping of protected wildlife in the Northern Territory is regulated by a permit system under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2006 (TPWC Act). Conditions are included on permits, and the Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory (“PWCNT”) may issue infringement notices or cancel permits if conditions are breached. A Permit to Keep Protected Wildlife enables people to legally possess native vertebrate animals in captivity in the Northern Territory. The permit system assists the PWCNT to monitor wildlife kept in captivity and to detect any illegal activities associated with the keeping of, and trade in, native wildlife. Venomous snakes are protected throughout the Northern Territory and may not be removed from the wild without the appropriate licences and permits. People are required to hold a Keep Permit (Category 1–3) to legally keep venomous snakes in the Northern Territory. Premises will be inspected by PWCNT staff to evaluate their suitability prior to any Keep Permit (Category 1– 3) being granted. Approvals may also be required from local councils, the Northern Territory Planning Authority, and the Department of Health and Community Services. Consignment of venomous snakes between the Northern Territory and other States and Territories can only be undertaken with an appropriate import / export permit. There are three categories of venomous snake permitted to be kept in captivity in the Northern Territory: Keep Permit (Category 1) – Mildly Dangerous Venomous Keep Permit (Category 2) – Dangerous Venomous Keep Permit (Category 3) – Highly Dangerous Venomous Venomous snakes must be obtained from a legal source (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Problems of Python Classification and Hybrid Pythons
    PROBLEMS OF PYTHON CLASSIFICATION AND HYBRID PYTHONS. By: Raymond Hoser, 170 Lawson Street, Redfern, NSW, 2016, Australia. Contents: Introduction - Summary of the problems in classifying Australia's pythons - Hybrids between species - Acknowledge­ ments - References. INTRODUCTION Australasia's pythons attract disproportionate in­ terest from herpetologists within Australia and elsewhere. There is also considerable debate in relation to the relationships between species, with various arrangements being proposed. Authors including Cogger (1986), Schmida (1985), and Stafford (1986), have tended to follow 'con­ sensus opinion' when assigning generic names to Australasian pythons. References in relation to general and more specific aspects of Australian pythons can be found in Haser (1981 a , 1981 b, 1981 c and 1982), and elsewhere. This short paper gives a summary of the problems facing Australian python taxonomists and gives details of an unusual captive breeding that resulted in hybrids between species being produced. SUMMARY OF THE PROBLEMS IN CLASSIFYING AUSTRALIA'S PYTHONS With the exception of the Black headed python and Woma (Genus Aspidites), all other Australian py­ thons have at various times been assigned to a number of different genera. Numerous schemes of 134 classification for the rema1n1ng Australian spe­ cies of python have been proposed. These include Hoser (1982), McDowell (1975), and Stull (1935). The schemes range from the placing of all species in the genus Python shared with other non Austra­ lian species, to placing the species in question in up to seven genera. Namely Bot"h:PochiZus3 Chon­ dropython3 Liasis3 LisaZia3 Liasis3 MoreZia3 and Python. The assignment of given species within a particular genus is also a matter of conflict.
    [Show full text]
  • Broad-Headed Snake (Hoplocephalus Bungaroides)', Proceedings of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales (1946-7), Pp
    Husbandry Guidelines Broad-Headed Snake Hoplocephalus bungaroides Compiler – Charles Morris Western Sydney Institute of TAFE, Richmond Captive Animals Certificate III RUV3020R Lecturers: Graeme Phipps, Jacki Salkeld & Brad Walker 2009 1 Occupational Health and Safety WARNING This Snake is DANGEROUSLY VENOMOUS CAPABLE OF INFLICTING A POTENTIALLY FATAL BITE ALWAYS HAVE A COMPRESSION BANDAGE WITHIN REACH SNAKE BITE TREATMENT: Do NOT wash the wound. Do NOT cut the wound, apply substances to the wound or use a tourniquet. Do NOT remove jeans or shirt as any movement will assist the venom to enter the blood stream. KEEP THE VICTIM STILL. 1. Apply a broad pressure bandage over the bite site as soon as possible. 2. Keep the limb still. The bandage should be as tight as you would bind a sprained ankle. 3. Extend the bandage down to the fingers or toes then up the leg as high as possible. (For a bite on the hand or forearm bind up to the elbow). 4. Apply a splint if possible, to immobilise the limb. 5. Bind it firmly to as much of the limb as possible. (Use a sling for an arm injury). Bring transport to the victim where possible or carry them to transportation. Transport the victim to the nearest hospital. Please Print this page off and put it up on the wall in your snake room. 2 There is some serious occupational health risks involved in keeping venomous snakes. All risk can be eliminated if kept clean and in the correct lockable enclosures with only the risk of handling left in play.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Animal Keepers Species List
    Revised NSW Native Animal Keepers’ Species List Draft © 2017 State of NSW and Office of Environment and Heritage With the exception of photographs, the State of NSW and Office of Environment and Heritage are pleased to allow this material to be reproduced in whole or in part for educational and non-commercial use, provided the meaning is unchanged and its source, publisher and authorship are acknowledged. Specific permission is required for the reproduction of photographs. The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) has compiled this report in good faith, exercising all due care and attention. No representation is made about the accuracy, completeness or suitability of the information in this publication for any particular purpose. OEH shall not be liable for any damage which may occur to any person or organisation taking action or not on the basis of this publication. Readers should seek appropriate advice when applying the information to their specific needs. All content in this publication is owned by OEH and is protected by Crown Copyright, unless credited otherwise. It is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0), subject to the exemptions contained in the licence. The legal code for the licence is available at Creative Commons. OEH asserts the right to be attributed as author of the original material in the following manner: © State of New South Wales and Office of Environment and Heritage 2017. Published by: Office of Environment and Heritage 59 Goulburn Street, Sydney NSW 2000 PO Box A290,
    [Show full text]
  • Testing the Relevance of Binary, Mosaic and Continuous Landscape Conceptualisations to Reptiles in Regenerating Dryland Landscapes
    Testing the relevance of binary, mosaic and continuous landscape conceptualisations to reptiles in regenerating dryland landscapes Melissa J. Bruton1, Martine Maron1,2, Noam Levin1,3, Clive A. McAlpine1,2 1The University of Queensland, Landscape Ecology and Conservation Group, School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, St Lucia, Australia 4067 2The University of Queensland, ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, St. Lucia, Australia 4067 3Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Department of Geography, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel, 91905 Corresponding author: [email protected] Ph: (+61) 409 875 780 The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0157-9 Abstract: Context: Fauna distributions are assessed using discrete (binary and mosaic) or continuous conceptualisations of the landscape. The value of the information derived from these analyses depends on the relevance of the landscape representation (or model) used to the landscape and fauna of interest. Discrete representations dominate analyses of landscape context in disturbed and regenerating landscapes; however within-patch variation suggests that continuous representations may help explain the distribution of fauna in such landscapes. Objectives: We tested the relevance of binary, mosaic, and continuous conceptualisations of landscape context to reptiles in regenerating dryland landscapes. Methods: For each of thirteen reptile groups, we compared the fit of models consisting of one landscape composition and one landscape heterogeneity variable for each of six landscape representations (2 x binary, 2 x mosaic, and 2 x continuous), at three buffer distances. We used Akaike weights to assess the relative support for each model. Maps were created from Landsat satellite images.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Cited in Lizards Natural History Database
    Literature Cited in Lizards Natural History database Abdala, C. S., A. S. Quinteros, and R. E. Espinoza. 2008. Two new species of Liolaemus (Iguania: Liolaemidae) from the puna of northwestern Argentina. Herpetologica 64:458-471. Abdala, C. S., D. Baldo, R. A. Juárez, and R. E. Espinoza. 2016. The first parthenogenetic pleurodont Iguanian: a new all-female Liolaemus (Squamata: Liolaemidae) from western Argentina. Copeia 104:487-497. Abdala, C. S., J. C. Acosta, M. R. Cabrera, H. J. Villaviciencio, and J. Marinero. 2009. A new Andean Liolaemus of the L. montanus series (Squamata: Iguania: Liolaemidae) from western Argentina. South American Journal of Herpetology 4:91-102. Abdala, C. S., J. L. Acosta, J. C. Acosta, B. B. Alvarez, F. Arias, L. J. Avila, . S. M. Zalba. 2012. Categorización del estado de conservación de las lagartijas y anfisbenas de la República Argentina. Cuadernos de Herpetologia 26 (Suppl. 1):215-248. Abell, A. J. 1999. Male-female spacing patterns in the lizard, Sceloporus virgatus. Amphibia-Reptilia 20:185-194. Abts, M. L. 1987. Environment and variation in life history traits of the Chuckwalla, Sauromalus obesus. Ecological Monographs 57:215-232. Achaval, F., and A. Olmos. 2003. Anfibios y reptiles del Uruguay. Montevideo, Uruguay: Facultad de Ciencias. Achaval, F., and A. Olmos. 2007. Anfibio y reptiles del Uruguay, 3rd edn. Montevideo, Uruguay: Serie Fauna 1. Ackermann, T. 2006. Schreibers Glatkopfleguan Leiocephalus schreibersii. Munich, Germany: Natur und Tier. Ackley, J. W., P. J. Muelleman, R. E. Carter, R. W. Henderson, and R. Powell. 2009. A rapid assessment of herpetofaunal diversity in variously altered habitats on Dominica.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigations Into the Presence of Nidoviruses in Pythons Silvia Blahak1, Maria Jenckel2,3, Dirk Höper2, Martin Beer2, Bernd Hoffmann2 and Kore Schlottau2*
    Blahak et al. Virology Journal (2020) 17:6 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-020-1279-5 RESEARCH Open Access Investigations into the presence of nidoviruses in pythons Silvia Blahak1, Maria Jenckel2,3, Dirk Höper2, Martin Beer2, Bernd Hoffmann2 and Kore Schlottau2* Abstract Background: Pneumonia and stomatitis represent severe and often fatal diseases in different captive snakes. Apart from bacterial infections, paramyxo-, adeno-, reo- and arenaviruses cause these diseases. In 2014, new viruses emerged as the cause of pneumonia in pythons. In a few publications, nidoviruses have been reported in association with pneumonia in ball pythons and a tiger python. The viruses were found using new sequencing methods from the organ tissue of dead animals. Methods: Severe pneumonia and stomatitis resulted in a high mortality rate in a captive breeding collection of green tree pythons. Unbiased deep sequencing lead to the detection of nidoviral sequences. A developed RT-qPCR was used to confirm the metagenome results and to determine the importance of this virus. A total of 1554 different boid snakes, including animals suffering from respiratory diseases as well as healthy controls, were screened for nidoviruses. Furthermore, in addition to two full-length sequences, partial sequences were generated from different snake species. Results: The assembled full-length snake nidovirus genomes share only an overall genome sequence identity of less than 66.9% to other published snake nidoviruses and new partial sequences vary between 99.89 and 79.4%. Highest viral loads were detected in lung samples. The snake nidovirus was not only present in diseased animals, but also in snakes showing no typical clinical signs.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Gulf, Queensland
    Biodiversity Summary for NRM Regions Species List What is the summary for and where does it come from? This list has been produced by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPC) for the Natural Resource Management Spatial Information System. The list was produced using the AustralianAustralian Natural Natural Heritage Heritage Assessment Assessment Tool Tool (ANHAT), which analyses data from a range of plant and animal surveys and collections from across Australia to automatically generate a report for each NRM region. Data sources (Appendix 2) include national and state herbaria, museums, state governments, CSIRO, Birds Australia and a range of surveys conducted by or for DEWHA. For each family of plant and animal covered by ANHAT (Appendix 1), this document gives the number of species in the country and how many of them are found in the region. It also identifies species listed as Vulnerable, Critically Endangered, Endangered or Conservation Dependent under the EPBC Act. A biodiversity summary for this region is also available. For more information please see: www.environment.gov.au/heritage/anhat/index.html Limitations • ANHAT currently contains information on the distribution of over 30,000 Australian taxa. This includes all mammals, birds, reptiles, frogs and fish, 137 families of vascular plants (over 15,000 species) and a range of invertebrate groups. Groups notnot yet yet covered covered in inANHAT ANHAT are notnot included included in in the the list. list. • The data used come from authoritative sources, but they are not perfect. All species names have been confirmed as valid species names, but it is not possible to confirm all species locations.
    [Show full text]
  • Hoser, R. T. 2018. New Australian Lizard Taxa Within the Greater Egernia Gray, 1838 Genus Group Of
    Australasian Journal of Herpetology 49 Australasian Journal of Herpetology 36:49-64. ISSN 1836-5698 (Print) Published 30 March 2018. ISSN 1836-5779 (Online) New Australian lizard taxa within the greater Egernia Gray, 1838 genus group of lizards and the division of Egernia sensu lato into 13 separate genera. RAYMOND T. HOSER 488 Park Road, Park Orchards, Victoria, 3134, Australia. Phone: +61 3 9812 3322 Fax: 9812 3355 E-mail: snakeman (at) snakeman.com.au Received 1 Jan 2018, Accepted 13 Jan 2018, Published 30 March 2018. ABSTRACT The Genus Egernia Gray, 1838 has been defined and redefined by many authors since the time of original description. Defined at its most conservative is perhaps that diagnosis in Cogger (1975) and reflected in Cogger et al. (1983), with the reverse (splitters) position being that articulated by Wells and Wellington (1985). They resurrected available genus names and added to the list of available names at both genus and species level. Molecular methods have largely confirmed the taxonomic positions of Wells and Wellington (1985) at all relevant levels and their legally available ICZN nomenclature does as a matter of course follow from this. However petty jealousies and hatred among a group of would-be herpetologists called the Wüster gang (as detailed by Hoser 2015a-f and sources cited therein) have forced most other publishing herpetologists since the 1980’s to not use anything Wells and Wellington. Therefore the most commonly “in use” taxonomy and nomenclature by published authors does not reflect the taxonomic reality. This author will not be unlawfully intimidated by Wolfgang Wüster and his gang of law-breaking thugs using unscientific methods to destabilize zoology as encapsulated in the hate rant of Kaiser et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Catalogue of Protozoan Parasites Recorded in Australia Peter J. O
    1 CATALOGUE OF PROTOZOAN PARASITES RECORDED IN AUSTRALIA PETER J. O’DONOGHUE & ROBERT D. ADLARD O’Donoghue, P.J. & Adlard, R.D. 2000 02 29: Catalogue of protozoan parasites recorded in Australia. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 45(1):1-164. Brisbane. ISSN 0079-8835. Published reports of protozoan species from Australian animals have been compiled into a host- parasite checklist, a parasite-host checklist and a cross-referenced bibliography. Protozoa listed include parasites, commensals and symbionts but free-living species have been excluded. Over 590 protozoan species are listed including amoebae, flagellates, ciliates and ‘sporozoa’ (the latter comprising apicomplexans, microsporans, myxozoans, haplosporidians and paramyxeans). Organisms are recorded in association with some 520 hosts including mammals, marsupials, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. Information has been abstracted from over 1,270 scientific publications predating 1999 and all records include taxonomic authorities, synonyms, common names, sites of infection within hosts and geographic locations. Protozoa, parasite checklist, host checklist, bibliography, Australia. Peter J. O’Donoghue, Department of Microbiology and Parasitology, The University of Queensland, St Lucia 4072, Australia; Robert D. Adlard, Protozoa Section, Queensland Museum, PO Box 3300, South Brisbane 4101, Australia; 31 January 2000. CONTENTS the literature for reports relevant to contemporary studies. Such problems could be avoided if all previous HOST-PARASITE CHECKLIST 5 records were consolidated into a single database. Most Mammals 5 researchers currently avail themselves of various Reptiles 21 electronic database and abstracting services but none Amphibians 26 include literature published earlier than 1985 and not all Birds 34 journal titles are covered in their databases. Fish 44 Invertebrates 54 Several catalogues of parasites in Australian PARASITE-HOST CHECKLIST 63 hosts have previously been published.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel's System for Risk Assessment of Imported Wildlife for the Pet Trade
    Israel ’s System for Risk Assessment of Imported Wildlife for the Pet Trade Dr. Simon Nemtzov Israel Nature and Parks Authority Jerusalem, Israel [email protected] 1 Univ. Notre Dame – April 2008 Israel is especially susceptible to invasive species because of its rich diversity of habitats and ecosystems. Why does Israel have such a high level of biodiversity? Species per m 2 in Mediterranean countries Eurostat 2008 2 1 EUROPE ASIA AFRICA 3 Biogeography of Israel Northern Israel: – Mediterranean ecosystem – Up to 1000 mm rainfall Central Israel Iraq – Dense urban population Israel Southern Israel: – Sudanese desert ecosystem – < 100 mm rainfall – Relatively low human impact Saudi Arabia 40 miles / 60 km 4 2 Israel ’s geographic factors Small area: ~21,700 km 2 (~ 8,400 sq mi) – (about the size of New Jersey) Intersection of 3 continents: – Asia, Africa and Europe – 4 biogeographical regions: Rich diversity of ecotones and biota Sea of Galilee - Lake Kinneret 5 Wildlife biodiversity in Israel 16 species of Carnivores: Striped hyena (Hyena hyena ) 5 species of canids: wolf (Canis lupus ), 3 foxes, golden jackal (C. aureus ) 5 sp. of mustelids : 2 badgers, beech marten, marbled polecat, otter (Lutra lutra ) Egyptian mongoose (Herpestes ichneumon ) 4 species of felids 6 3 Wildlife biodiversity in Israel 4 species of felids: Caracal (Felis caracal ) Leopard (Panthera pardus ) Wild cat (Felis silvestris ) Jungle cat (Felis chaus ) (Sand cat (Felis margarita) ) 7 Risk Assessment Procedure Simplified system based on Australia ’s system (Bomford 1991, 2003) Importer requests an import permit from INPA No application fee! INPA ecologist collects biological data (answers “The Questions ”), prepares opinion, and assigns initial risk category (H / M / L) 3 ecologist referees → Consensus category Coypu 8 4 The risk assessment questions 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Terrestrial Fauna Assessment
    Cameby Downs Continued Operations Project EnvironmentalEnvironmental Values Assessment Assessment APPENDIX E Terrestrial Fauna Assessment Cameby Downs Continued Operation Project Terrestrial Fauna Assessment May 2018 Syntech Resources Pty Ltd ecology / vegetation / wildlife / aquatic ecology / GIS Executive summary The Cameby Downs Mine is owned and operated by Syntech Resources Pty Ltd (Syntech) and is managed by Yancoal Australia Ltd (Yancoal). Syntech are considering expanding their operation area as part of the Cameby Downs Continued Operations Project (the Project) and an environmental values statement is being prepared to accompany a major Environmental Authority Amendment application. Syntech commissioned Ecosure Pty Ltd (Ecosure) to undertake terrestrial fauna field surveys and ecological assessments to address the minimum requirements in the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage (DEHP) Information Request for an Amendment Application for an Environmental Authority. To supplement previous fauna surveys undertaken over the last decade, Ecosure undertook preliminary surveys and targeted surveys in July 2016. More comprehensive surveys followed in October 2016. Overall, six detailed trapping sites, 50 observational surveys and 56 targeted surveys were undertaken across the study area to determine the likelihood of occurrence of species listed as conservation significant species under State legislation and/ or threatened under Commonwealth legislation. A total of five conservation significant species have been recorded during field surveys (including previous surveys) conducted in the study area. These were: • koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) • glossy black-cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami lathami) • grey snake (Hemiaspis damelii) • short-beaked echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus) • yakka skink (Egernia rugosa) (during previous surveys only). A total of 192 species were recorded during the field surveys, including 13 amphibians, 101 birds, 25 mammals and 26 reptiles.
    [Show full text]